DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on 02/27/2024 in which claims 1-20 are preserved for examination; of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are in independent forms.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/27/2024 and 04/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method/system/storage medium which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite the steps of:
identifying a base model, from a model database, corresponding to the first NNM; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim (BRI), it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind.]
identifying duplicate parameters of the first NNM and the base model; [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind.]
generating a delta file corresponding to non-duplicate parameters of the first NNM and the base model; [recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., an expert or developer) can manually and mentally create a file with unique or non-duplicate parameters of models]
identifying a physical memory device in the computing system that includes a shared region that includes at least a portion of the base model;
[recited at a high level of generality and based on BRI, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind.]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including
an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 15, and 16 recite the additional steps of receiving a request to store first neural network model (NNM) in the computing system; obtaining parameters of the first NNM; and loading, in a private region of the physical memory device, the parameters from the delta file that are considered as insignificant extra solution activities of gathering data and loading/transferring data to a memory. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
The memory, processor, and/or storage medium are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
These additional elements do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 15, and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite the additional steps of receiving a request to store first neural network model (NNM) in the computing system; obtaining parameters of the first NNM; and loading, in a private region of the physical memory device, the parameters from the delta file that are considered as well-understood, conventional, and routine activities of gathering data and loading/transferring data to a memory. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
The memory, processor, and/or storage medium are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9, and 16,
The limitation of wherein the physical memory device is a graphical processing unit recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 17,
the dependent claims further recite step for creating a logical memory that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea. The dependent claims also recite additional step of storing pointers in memory which is recited at a high level of generality and considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood routine of storing data that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19,
the claims include data definitions which are non-functional descriptive materials
failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount
significantly to more than abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 6, 13, and 20,
the dependent claims include mathematical concept and a concept of evaluation of judgment that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 14,
the dependent claims further recite step for adding the NNM to the model database that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea. The dependent claims also recite additional step of storing parameters which is recited at a high level of generality and considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood routine of storing data that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choo et al., US 2020/0134469 disclosing accurately determining a model, which is to be the basis of transfer learning, among a plurality of source models, are provided. An apparatus for determining a base model to be used for transfer learning to a target domain is provided. The apparatus comprises a memory which comprises one or more instructions and a processor which executes the instructions to construct a neural network model for measuring suitability of a plurality of pre-trained source models, measure the suitability of each of the source models by inputting data of the target domain to the neural network model, and determine the base model to be used for the transfer learning among the source models based on the suitability.
Almasi et al, US 2018/0095876 disclosing a method comprises assigning each of a plurality of virtual functions an associated memory area of a physical memory, and executing the virtual functions in a single root-input/output virtualization environment to provide each of a plurality of guests with direct access to the physical memory. In one embodiment, each of the guests is associated with a respective one of the virtual functions; and the assigning each of the plurality of virtual functions an associated memory area includes maintaining a per-virtual function mapping table identifying a respective one mapping function for each of the virtual functions, and each of the mapping functions mapping one of the memory areas of the physical area to an associated virtual memory.
Chen et al., US 2023/0196069 disclosing a neural network processing method, comprising the following steps: obtaining a model dataset and model structure parameters of an original network; obtaining an operational attribute of each compute node in the original network; operating the original network according to the model dataset and the model structure parameters of the original network and the operational attribute of each compute node, to obtain an instruction corresponding to each compute node in the original network; and if the operational attribute of the current compute node is a first operational attribute, storing a network weight and the instruction corresponding to the current compute node into a first non-volatile memory, so as to obtain a first offline model corresponding to the original network.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
10/06/2026
Prosecution Insights